In the case of Perego v. Dodge in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York law that allowed for an executor or administrator to sue for damages resulting from a person's death due to wrongful act, neglect or default was applicable outside of its jurisdiction. The incident involved two residents of New York who were on board a ship sailing off the coast of Florida when one died as result of negligence by another passenger. The court ruled that while it is generally accepted that laws do not have any force beyond their own territory unless other nations permit them, there are exceptions where certain statutes can operate extraterritorially if they relate to personal rights and obligations and don't interfere with sovereignty rights or policy matters within foreign jurisdictions. However, this particular statute did not fall into those categories because it created new liabilities rather than merely regulating existing ones; thus, it could only be enforced within New York State boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for Perego v. Dodge, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Dodge contradicted established legal principles regarding property rights and inheritance law. The dissenting justices believed that Mrs. Perego had a legitimate claim to her deceased husband's estate, despite his failure to properly execute his will before he died. They contended that Mr. Perego clearly intended for his wife to inherit his property and this intention should be respected by the courts even if there were technical issues with how he expressed this wish in writing. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant state laws which they felt unfairly disadvantaged Mrs.Perego due to her status as an immigrant who may not have fully understood these rules at the time she made her claim.